DescentBB

Obama's hero and idol, Venezuelan President ̶H̶u̶g̶o̶ ̶C̶h̶a̶v̶e̶z̶ Nicolas Maduro, declared with commanding reassurance: “I’m a socialist and I know what I’m doing.”

This is the kind of state the left wing (the democratic party) wants us to become...

...Maduro is a socialist, and he knows what he’s doing. That’s why he decreed on Wednesday that company profits can no longer exceed 30 percent. A comfortable operating environment for J.C. Penney, yes, but a solution? Don’t be so skeptical.

Things are under control. As the vice president (whose motto is I am an oboist and I know when I’m squeaking) explained on Thursday, “Our fundamental anchor is the dollar at 6.3 bolivars,” just as the Titanic’s fundamental anchor was a rubber bath toy named Davey.

http://go.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-extra ... -im-doing/



The land of no toilet paper- but plasma TVs for everyone, awaits!

Socialists don't know what they're doing anymore than Capitalists know what they're doing. Besides, even in wonderful Capitalist land of plenty in the U.S., WE can't get decent TP that doesn't cause a rash or leave dingleberrries anymore.

Planted, my dingleberries bear fruit.

TMI

You'd still think that the U.S., with all our supposedly great innovation and capitalism, could come up with decent TP. I mean, come on!

I'm a "Hardass" and don't worry about the softness of TP

I'm not talking softness. Softness equals dingleberries and short rolls. I'm talking about getting no allergic reactions to whatever cheap pulp they're using to make some price point. Even a hardass can get a rash.

I love my John Wayne Paper it's rough and tough and won't take ★■◆● off no one.

wow, did this thread veer off.

Not really. TB had that reference about no TP but plenty of Plasma TV's. I was just pointing out that even with Capitalism, we can't get good TP.

Plain old Scotty gets the job done well enough as far as I'm concerned. I've experienced the really cheap stuff in college...never again. *shudder*

Venezuela is the kind of state the left wing (the democratic party) wants us to become...

as if you'd have the first clue.....

callmeslick wrote:as if you'd have the first clue.....

There you have precisely articulated the exact sentiment behind every strategy either party in America ever adopts!

whatever, Will......my point, as has been made before, is that 'conservatives' trying to tell me what 'liberals' think or are hoping to accomplish is akin to me speculating on what squirrels think when they're running through my backyard. The fact that TB is even attempting it and using Venezuela as some sort of 'liberal' beacon is laughable.

callmeslick wrote:The fact that TB is even attempting it and using Venezuela as some sort of 'liberal' beacon is laughable.

It's not a beacon. It's a socialist black hole that the democrats seem want the US to circle and go down.

We have an executive that has decided he's king (or generalisimo, dictator, what have you) and can hand down executive orders from on high more than any other president in recent history has- congress and the American people be damned.

Industries are being destroyed (just like Venezuela has done to its oil and gas industry) and destructive taxation imposed.

Wealth is being redistributed- not to the poor, but to democrat cronies (just like Venezuela does.)

What we need in this country is some “real” wealth redistribution…let’s start with land…

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:The fact that TB is even attempting it and using Venezuela as some sort of 'liberal' beacon is laughable.

It's not a beacon. It's a socialist black hole that the democrats seem want the US to circle and go down.

how so? I hang around long enough to talk to a fair number of Democrats, both official and merely registered voters. I've never heard ANYONE hold Venezuela up as some sort of model. EVER.

We have an executive that has decided he's king (or generalisimo, dictator, what have you) and can hand down executive orders from on high more than any other president in recent history has- congress and the American people be damned.

load of BS.....look it up, nothing extraordinary about Obama, and unlike Bush, he doesn't re-interpret every bill that Congress passes, either.

Industries are being destroyed (just like Venezuela has done to its oil and gas industry) and destructive taxation imposed.

reality check: Industries are actually making their first comeback in two decades, and no real major taxation has been imposed. Feel free to rejoin whatever planet you've been on TB.

Wealth is being redistributed- not to the poor, but to democrat cronies (just like Venezuela does.)

how so? I have had so much wealth redistributed to me by the previous administration(at least 30K per year, conservatively), perhaps I didn't notice.

Spidey wrote:What we need in this country is some “real” wealth redistribution…let’s start with land…

are you serious?How would you wish that to work?

Actually, South America is booming right now. Their economies are supercharged. I'm temporarily running my friends business while he starts a new venture and we are sending tons of product to all the countries of South America. It's almost to the point where I need to learn Spanish and Portuguese. There are many different systems of government in SA and all of them seem to be working quite well from a global economic standpoint. The biggest complaint any of our customers have is with import/export taxes. Anecdote: A few years ago, a friend I met online moved from Uruguay (a dictatorship) to California for several months. He thought the USA sucked and moved back! I was shocked. I couldn't believe it.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:What we need in this country is some “real” wealth redistribution…let’s start with land…

are you serious?How would you wish that to work?

We take 2 of the 3 houses you own and give them to poor families. We take all that farm land you brag about, break it up into 5 acre plots and let poor families homestead it. Then of course we will wind up like Zimbabwe and go from a net exporter of food to a total importer. Isn't socialism grand?

ThunderBunny wrote:Venezuela is the kind of state the left wing (the democratic party) wants us to become...

Highly unlikely. Half this country would violently oppose it. That's why we have elections. When one party goes too far with their ideas, out they go. When THAT party's ideas become too oppressive, out THEY go, wash, rinse, repeat. But no one gets the obvious. Nothing works in extremes, for either party. However, no one seems to want to combine their ideas into something stable that works for all. But that would require some give and take on both sides, that both sides could live with, wouldn't it?

Top Gun wrote:Plain old Scotty gets the job done well enough as far as I'm concerned. I've experienced the really cheap stuff in college...never again. *shudder*

Used to be nice, but it's pretty thin now. Takes too much to get the job done.

tunnelcat wrote:Highly unlikely. Half this country would violently oppose it. That's why we have elections. When one party goes too far with their ideas, out they go. When THAT party's ideas become too oppressive, out THEY go, wash, rinse, repeat. But no one gets the obvious. Nothing works in extremes, for either party. However, no one seems to want to combine their ideas into something stable that works for all. But that would require some give and take on both sides, that both sides could live with, wouldn't it?

Agreed...and I'm only posting this because I seem to be giving you grief more often than not.

I feel like TB's vision of the world is akin to the Milkman Conspiracy level from Psychonauts.

(If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go play that game yesterday.)

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Highly unlikely. Half this country would violently oppose it. That's why we have elections. When one party goes too far with their ideas, out they go. When THAT party's ideas become too oppressive, out THEY go, wash, rinse, repeat. But no one gets the obvious. Nothing works in extremes, for either party. However, no one seems to want to combine their ideas into something stable that works for all. But that would require some give and take on both sides, that both sides could live with, wouldn't it?

Agreed...and I'm only posting this because I seem to be giving you grief more often than not.

That's because a Democrat is in office right now and it ticks you off. But you don't need to be giving me more grief because even I don't like a lot of what Obama is doing now.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:What we need in this country is some “real” wealth redistribution…let’s start with land…

are you serious?How would you wish that to work?

We take 2 of the 3 houses you own and give them to poor families. We take all that farm land you brag about, break it up into 5 acre plots and let poor families homestead it. Then of course we will wind up like Zimbabwe and go from a net exporter of food to a total importer. Isn't socialism grand?

Well, I never suggested it was grand, or desired(or wouldn't be fought by me) to have collective socialism. It's never worked that I know of. What's more, no one is urging toward collective socialism. We've had programs of a socialist design in the US since 1922, a least, and none has pushed us toward collectivism. Why the fear-mongering? Because that is all your doing, there is no actual truth involved in anything from you or TB in this thread.

callmeslick wrote:Well, I never suggested it was grand, or desired(or wouldn't be fought by me) to have collective socialism.

Agreed. More proof that the left-leaning here don't lean too far left. The most successful countries all have mixed economies, which combine a free market with valuable social programs. The United States has a mixed economy. We are also arguably the most successful country in the world. The danger for America isn't that we will slip too far one way or the other because you can still be a successful on either side of the spectrum. The danger is corruption. Say what you want about the President, but it is the legislative branch that is royally screwing this country over from both sides of the aisle.

ahhhh, but it is sooooooo easy to blame the President, Vision. Or, to oversimplify and not face the complex realities that make politics have less to do with economic theory and ideology than it does with who's paying the bills for the Members of Congress.

Blaming the president for every little thing is a little silly, but the obsession with defending a president against every little slight is also a bit silly.

I don’t hate Obama or blame him for everything wrong with the country, but I will hold him accountable for such things as dropping the ball on health care and lack of leadership on the economy.

The basic problem I see here is simple…you guys don’t know how to tell the difference between the two, and knee jerk at every criticism, not just the unfounded ones.

yet, Spidey, YOU see him 'dropping the ball on healthcare and (not leading) on the economy, while I(and a lot of people who look at it dispassionately), see someone who did what could be done to move healthcare forward(and succeeded, despite what you read here), and more importantly, came to the table with the ONLY long-term thinking on the economy and how to reverse a 30 year course that is destroying the whole middle-class/economic mobility thing. That he hasn't succeeded says nothing about leadership, or at least very little compared to the blind opposition that has been the stumbling block to getting anything done.

callmeslick wrote:yet, Spidey, YOU see him 'dropping the ball on healthcare and (not leading) on the economy, while I(and a lot of people who look at it dispassionately), ...

NNNnnnnnnGggg!!!! /alarm

Warning! You have gone of the rails of reality!

You tell yourself your perspective is dispassionate because you think that makes you more credible but who in their right mind goes to such lengths as you do to prop up defense for Obama's every policy without being deeply passionate?
You are not above the fray. You are waist deep in the muck.

Ya, Mr dispassionate

Mr delusional is more appropriate.

callmeslick wrote: That he hasn't succeeded says nothing about leadership, or at least very little compared to the blind opposition that has been the stumbling block to getting anything done.

It has everything to do with leadership. Clinton got things done precisely because he had leadership and knew how to work with the opposition.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: That he hasn't succeeded says nothing about leadership, or at least very little compared to the blind opposition that has been the stumbling block to getting anything done.

It has everything to do with leadership. Clinton got things done precisely because he had leadership and knew how to work with the opposition.

Clinton had people on the opposition that were not dead set against EVERYTHING. Further, the course Obama has been advocating for is a tough path, and a very long path. The American people, let alone the Congress, are generally unwilling to accept long, difficult solutions. Thus, one's 'leadership' skills would have to exceed any President in my lifetime and then some to get adequate support. At least the man brings some clarity of vision to the table.

He proves my point, by having to dispute my contextual reiteration….lol…

Will Robinson wrote:You are not above the fray. You are waist deep in the muck.

that was precisely why I chose the phrase,"....others who are dispassionate". I wished to imply the obvious...that, as an early supporter(2 years before inauguration), I am NOT dispassionate, but others who are have come to the same conclusion as I have.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are not above the fray. You are waist deep in the muck.

that was precisely why I chose the phrase,"....others who are dispassionate". I wished to imply the obvious...that, as an early supporter(2 years before inauguration), I am NOT dispassionate, but others who are have come to the same conclusion as I have.

Ooops, my apologies. I should have given the caffeine a little more time to do it's work before posting!

callmeslick wrote:yet, Spidey.......

“Any yet….”
“And yet…”

Yea, and yet I actually have the unmitigated gall to form an opinion…


Slick is making the same mistake as Cob, I’m not delusional about what the president can and can’t do about the economy, but I would like to see someone get a pair of balls and actually set a policy of public education regarding how personal habits affect the economy.

Obama shows no more ability to tell people what they need to hear, instead of what they want to hear…than any of his predecessors.

I’m really tired of the same old crap from both parties…more taxes, and social programs….military….lalalala….sheesh.

Leadership is when you burn some of that political capital, and actually tell someone the truth.

Spidey wrote:......I would like to see someone get a pair of balls and actually set a policy of public education regarding how personal habits affect the economy.

look, this is a REALLY nice idea. I think it can be helpful. BUT, with all the issues, agendas and whatnot that affect the President of the United States, on a daily basis, can you really see such a public education program ever be seen as a front-burner item?

Obama shows no more ability to tell people what they need to hear, instead of what they want to hear…than any of his predecessors.

if you go back in detail, you will note that he was far better at the straight medicine approach in the first year or two. And then, even I'll admit, he sort of gave up, because it constantly seemed to fall on deaf ears, perhaps.

I’m really tired of the same old crap from both parties…more taxes, and social programs….military….lalalala….sheesh.

Leadership is when you burn some of that political capital, and actually tell someone the truth.

I'll agree completely. It's just that our current political system for generating and electing candidates doesn't lend itself at ALL to getting that sort of leadership to come forward, let alone succeed at getting elected. I'll wager that history will show that in Barack Obama, we actually did as well as could be possibly hoped for from the available system.

As a formerly registered Republican (I went no-party this year), who did not vote for Obama, and is pretty aggravated with some of his policies, I think he is doing an excellent job on addressing the country's health care issues the best he can considering overwhelming amount of differing opinions on the subject. As I've said before, it's a good start. We won't be able to see the tangible effects of the ACA for a couple years, realistically.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: That he hasn't succeeded says nothing about leadership, or at least very little compared to the blind opposition that has been the stumbling block to getting anything done.

It has everything to do with leadership. Clinton got things done precisely because he had leadership and knew how to work with the opposition.

Clinton had people on the opposition that were not dead set against EVERYTHING. Further, the course Obama has been advocating for is a tough path, and a very long path. The American people, let alone the Congress, are generally unwilling to accept long, difficult solutions. Thus, one's 'leadership' skills would have to exceed any President in my lifetime and then some to get adequate support. At least the man brings some clarity of vision to the table.

Clarity? Lets read what Jill Abramson, executive director of the New York Times thinks about Obama's "Clarity":
"The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It's on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with."
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/show ... haler.html

Leadership is not something you have to treat everyone like a mushroom.